Tom Chabbat

I feel like talking about god's existence here ! :) If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to have some actual proofs... As I said before, please show some DS8 or regular 8 footage that look significantly better than Jose's, or some serious article revealing test results. I feel the more a thing is difficult to prove, the deeper the belief... How can you seriously say that super 8 cartridge does not have a pressure plate ? How could it works if it doesn't ? Do you actually know how film transport works in a camera ? Super 8 cartridge does have a little spring loaded plate that applies pressure on film. A pressure plate. I've read the patent. It mentions a "pressure pad". Ok, not plate, let's play with words if you want, but in the end, same effect. Again, contrary to the common belief, the smaller the format, the bigger the tolerances. If not, a 16mm camera would cost much higher than a 35mm one. Because when you have a smaller format, it is easier to move it, keep it still and flat. It's as simple as that. You can have an over-engineered camera with 35mm tolerances made for super 8, but you won't notice any improvement on picture quality. As long as you are within the practical tolerances, improving precision won't have any effects. It's like putting a 4k capable lens on a 2k sensor, it will produce the same results as if you put a lens with enough resolving power for 2k. Remember we're just talking about gear here, they just have a simple mechanical function, nothing to magically improve picture sharpness. For the registration pin, I don't like to repeat myself, but its use is only relevant on high speed design. See professional 35mm camera. Aaton don't have pin. Because in normal speeds, pressure plate is sufficient to hold the film still. And as super 8 moves more than 4 times slower than 35mm, it's even more useless here. Look at Jose's work. It's the sharpest you can have in this format. If this is not enough for you, the only solution is to have more resolution or a better lens. Or, shortly, going to 16 or even 35mm.

To be maybe more clear and brief, the point I'm trying to make is as simple as that : All things being equal, it doesn't matter wether the pressure plate is inside or outside the cartridge as long as it works properly. If we see some problems, the design is not the cause, only the way it is executed. So instead of trying to fix this issue with a whole new camera, it is much more simpler to fix it with better made cartridges so everyone can enjoy it.

If we're talking about the same thing, I think those "clips" are actually present in almost all super 8 camera... those little spring push the film against the opposite vertical guide of the gate to maximise horizontal steadiness. I'll be happy to try those wittner cartridges, they always had very serious products. Referring to r8, I was not talking about the grain which is not dependent of our subject here but more of steadiness. But maybe there were shot with low grade cameras, I don't know. What I know is that I shoot a lot with single 8 cartridges which are functionally the same as r8, and really my footage looks the same be it in super or single 8 (with the same lens and same stock).

I actually never saw regular 8mm footage which looks better than S8. All the ones I've seen looked worse to me in every way. And if you open a r8 camera, you'll be surprised to find plastic pressure plates... I even own a 16mm camera with a wooden plate (!). No registration or flatness problems. What is true though is that sometimes the cartridges does not engage well. But maybe that's because today manufacturing tolerances at Kodak are not what they used to be, or because the cartridge has already been repacked a lot of times as they seem to be reused after processing. But this is not a design flaw, only a manufacturing one. This is something which can be solved with some independent company deciding to produce their own cartridge with tighter tolerances. This way we're curing the disease at its roots which is better for everyone. Jose is so right. If you want a good and cheap picture quality and reliability, HD is really good today. Super 8 is not the place to have a clinical look.

Thanks Jose ! So good to hear your voice, the footage you made is so wonderful ! You really make me ashamed of not having shot a single roll of film since a year... What I'm trying to say is that you will not have a better quality with some other exotic registration or pressure plate because those parameters have almost no influence on it ! They are just here to keep the film in place ! Image quality only depends of film resolution and lens sharpness. The frame is so small that film flatness is very easily achieved by just a slight pression on its edge. And keeping it firmly against the gate is the only thing required to assure perfect focus. Saying that the Super 8 cartridge and camera design was flawed from the beginning and that they could have done much better sounds almost like some plot theory. You induce that in almost 20 years when it was used by millions of people, no one from the manufacturers to the customers really care about quality and just wanted some cheap toys to play with. What was then the point of paying a premium price for a Beaulieu if at the end the result was this worse ? Do you really think engineers were this careless ? People this blind ? When Kodak introduced their new system, they had the goal to produce better results than 8mm. If not, what was the point of enlarging the frame to have more resolution if it was not fully exploitable ? If DS8 offered a significant better quality then, I assure you a lot more people would have turned to it. Human empathy have a small tendency to take de defense of the underdog, but truth is that most of DS8 cameras was a way for small manufacturers to not design entirely new cameras. A top quality and innovative company like Beaulieu preferred to develop a new line of cameras for the new format instead of converting their old R8. People have to stop spreading some myths. If they had done so earlier, I'm sure Lasse could have made a much simpler and cheaper design and everyone would be equally happy with the results.

I feel a lot of people, when they don't really understand a technology, think that the more complicated the design the more effective it will be. Well, this is not always the case, far from it. To put it simply, one have to remember that super 8 film moves something like 4,5 times slower than 35mm for a same frame rate, so it is this easier to keep the film still when shutter is open with a well designed pressure plate. Does someone really wondered why only the Mekel have separate feeder, pressure plate and registration pin ? Because it deals with much higher speeds, where the fast moving film requires more complex registration to be sure it will not move during exposure. This camera is over-engineered for just 24 fps. I hear the point that super 8 also has to be projected this time bigger too, so smaller deviations will become more apparent. But registration flaws only have to do with precision tolerances of the pull-down claw. And it is much more easier to have just one precise claw than one with a pin mechanism. The more parts you had, the tighter tolerances must be. Now just look at this random footage I just found on vimeo : Do anyone sees how sharp it is ? Does anyone really noticed registration problems ? I dare you too find DS8 footage which looks better... I remember seeing the same endless debates 10 years ago on filmshooting, Erkan must too. The conclusions are always the same. Kodak engineers knew their stuff. And they did an awesome job.

Erkan, we're on the same wave. People ask too much of this already wonderful format. But what you said is interesting... are you really in touch with former Soviet technicians ? I would so much love to learn from their experience. If they could make something like a Zenit Quartz but with oscillating mirror and functional C-mount that would be something to throw my money in !

Erkan, I don't clearly see what you're trying to show here... You're absolutely right, we should always give people a chance, and that's why I hope this project succeed, even if I have my own doubts. I don't think we can really compare those companies with what is happening here. All those people tried to introduce something new, a disruptive technology (like instant magazines for Eclair, reflex shutter for Arri or timecode for Beauviala). Here we just have a mix bag of already proven technology. Even if it's somewhat new to have all those technologies in one super 8 camera, it's nothing like a real engineering advance.

I shot in single 8 which has separate pressure plate, and I've tried the little add-on metal pressure plate you put on standard plastic cartridges. Both showed no-improvements. Be it metal or plastic doesn't change a thing as long as there's sufficient tolerance. And Nicolas, before you say my statement is based on no factual data, I suggest you put your hands for once on real professional grade 35mm and 16mm cameras. Both Aaton and Eclair before produced rock steady camera without any registration pin. Aaton actually achieve a better registration than most of "pin" based system with a quartz controlled pull down claw. Please check some facts. I feel when a technology once dominant goes to a niche market, some myths quickly rise. All this reminds me of the belt vs direct drive in Hi-Fi, or anchor vs coaxial escapement in horology. Vain quests in superiority for nostalgic geeks. I feel Super 8 must be appreciated as it is, an amateur format with qualities and flaws. Just shoot it, nobody will notice registration problems. I fear we're going here with the same consumerist flaws that makes me hate digital, this always more, always better kind of thinking. People are happy with 1080p ? Let them want 4K ! Where are we going ? Can't we be happy with just what we have if the quality is already fully enjoyable ? I've seen lately some wonderful HD transfers of super 8 on vimeo. They were mostly made with old Beaulieu or Canon and I thought the quality was astonishing. Apart from the fact that I doubt it's possible, in anyways I happy with this quality and don't want more.

I really doubt the pin registration or separate pressure plate will add anything noticeable in picture quality. I'm really eager to see some footage coming out of it.

I feel sometimes that the best directors are the least technical ones. They just have something interesting to express and have a good idea of how to translate it in this specific medium. The cinematographer's job is to translate it technically. The least the director worries about technic, the more he can focus on the story. I don't want to spit on my own job, but I feel sometimes than some of the best movies have a very simple and minimalist cinematography. And most of the time people are less sensitive to the look of the film than what's going on. In France we had in the past years some very well received movies with bad cinematography. I have in mind "L'Esquive" by Kechiche, which was shot with a crappy video camera and almost no lighting. But people still loved it, because the characters and story were true. If you see a lot of recent "auteur" french movies, you'll see that they're almost like in a documentary style. I guess simple filming technics permits to focus more on the characters and their emotions. By contrast, when I see some "mainstream" american movies, there's travelling in almost every shot, even when it's just someone sitting in front of his computer. And I have a little thought for all the technicians behind this, the DP, the focus puller, the dolly operator and all who worked a lot for something people won't notice and doesn't even have any meaning regarding the narrative.

I see your point Erkan, but to me it still would be a cool feature, and I'm convinced that it could be done in a very compact way, like for the ACL. I agree with you that a small compact camera is to be preferred, but Lasse's camera is already much more bulkier than your average 8mm camera. Call me crazy, but I always thought it would be cool to have the possibility to hand crank my camera or to put a clockwork motor, and save some batteries since most of the time I don't need pinpoint speed stability. I know I'm just daydreaming, fact is we all have a different idea of the perfect camera. I'm just throwing some ideas, who knows... Your experience with the Fujica is intriguing to me, because I feel the exact opposite ! I own a couple of Beaulieu 4008xx, and I got my hands on most of the top cameras like the Leicina, the 1014 or even the R10, and I always felt none of them has the combination of features and build quality of the ZC1000. My 4008 feels cheap to me... But I don't listen to me, I guess I'm too "romantic" with 8mm !

Thank you Lasse. Too bad the shutter angle is fixed, I feel variable shutter is a must in a pro camera. When I said "modular", I did not mean "hacking", but simply have different options to adapt different needs. I think when you're in such a niche, a product needs to be more "custom tailored"... For example, having swappable motors on a 1:1 shaft would permit some user to put a time lapse specific motor or a high speed one to go up to 100 fps. A lot of 16mm and 35mm cameras from before 1970s had this feature. I'm just thinking out loud here. I find your adventure interesting, even if I don't really see the point. I think there's a great part in the pleasure we find in filming in 8mm to use some finely made gear with stylish retro design. I can safely say that for most of 8mm user their camera weights a lot in the affection they have for the format. We must not forget that there's already some very fine designs which can be purchased for the fraction of what this camera will cost. I already own the legendary ZC1000, and if you want me to buy a newer camera, I feel it should have at least as many features, i.e. up to 72fps, variable shutter and optical viewfinder (sorry, I really don't like the LCD, I don't want an 8mm camera to feel like digital). The whole point to me is to feel in your hands a beautiful piece of craftsmanship, and I have the impression you insist too much on not so pertinent features at the expense of overall build quality and design. I may sound very skeptical, but I actually really hope you'll find some customers, since you're making in your way the Super 8 community alive. I just fear you're not heading in the right direction. But I sincerely hope you prouve me wrong.

Thanks Lasse, I understand your concerns. I've been looking through this thread and I think there's some missing information about your design I'm curious to know... First, there's no mention of the shutter speed, and if it's continuously variable. Is your oscillating mirror acting as a shutter like in the beaulieu design or is there a separate pale (or two if variable) like in other designs ? Second, did you measured the noise level ? Did you consider to make a more modular camera ? I mean, with the ability to change the motor or viewfinder for example. Also, I feel the separate pressure plate and pin registration are unnecessarily expenses to the design... I know I'm going against the myth that a pressure plate makes the film more stable, but in "real life", having shot both super 8 and single 8, I never really noticed any sensible difference in sharpness due to instability of film plane. And I thought this debate was close after some tried with no results the "precision" plates for cartridges. As for registration pin, when we see the superior stability of Aaton cameras, we need to wonder if it's really this useful. And when I see an over engineered camera like the ZC1000, I doubt that it lacks one because Fuji were cheap... Regards, Tom

Please keep in mind you're addressing a niche market. So small we can safely say it will never get the attention of bigger manufacturers. Few people today use super-8. Within those people fewer need a "professional" camera. And even fewer of this last group will consider buying a brand new super 8 camera. This makes me wondering if your camera really have some new technology to protect. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but what do your camera really offers compared to a Beaulieu 6008 or a Fujica ZC1000 apart from the all electronic framing ? Do you really have some patents to protect ? On the other way, think that if you share your schematics with a bunch of passionate people, if you work in an "open source" way, maybe you will see some people coming with very good ideas on how to ameliorate your design. Don't forget, you're addressing a very specific niche with very specific needs who for a good part know their stuff extremely well...

Sorry if it does not seem obvious to me, but why would you want to use your Leicina over the Fujica ? The ZC1000 is a far better camera, second to none in the 8mm world. The Leicina is not worth the trouble if you ask me, I used both too and I prefer to use the Fujica without a single doubt, even if it means diy cartridge loading. And if you want to absolutely use a Super-8 cartridge, you can find yourself a Beaulieu for less than the price of a Leicina lens.

I just cited my Fujinon, but actually every zoom lenses you can put your hands on. Doing macro with a zoom lens is very interesting because you can use the zoom barrel to focus. Some other aspect you need to consider is the ergonomics of all this : as the lens, to have the right flange focal distance, will be in a recess, the lens not only will have to be small enough, but you might have some problems to have access to some of its functions depending on where the focus and stop barrels are. To give an example, I have a Fujinon 1.4/25 which stop barrel is only 5 mm from the mount. Given that there's approximately a 10mm difference between the C-mount and M-mount FFD, it will be likely that I will not be able to access to the iris function. If you absolutely want to use C-mount lenses in super-8, I think the easier way is to find yourself a Beaulieu or a Fujica. There was a lot of Leicina users in the 70's and I think that if it would have been possible to adapt C-mount lenses to this camera, we would have heard of it.

I think film will never disappear, as vinyl or magnetic tape in music, because as a medium which have its own unique particularities, there will always be enthusiasts passionate enough to make it live. I actually dream for a post-industrial world where everyone could produce his own film or whatever other artistic medium, not depending of big companies tied to rentability, producing just what they need the way they want. But maybe I dream too much.

Sorry but even when the focusing elements move independently from the rear lens group, you can always achieve macro, you can try for yourself. But even with "old" lenses, using the focusing ring is pretty useless anyway in macro photography, you focus moving the whole camera. I work a lot like that for extreme close ups, having a nice set of M42 extensions tubes. I actually use a Fujinon 54-270 with independent focus barrel (as it's a zoom lens) with which the minimum focusing distance is so far (2.5m) that using extension tubes are the only way to achieve close focus. What is true though is that image quality is far from optimal in those cases, but can still be sharp enough. But getting back to the C to F adapter, the adapter you showed on the link does not seem to have optical elements nor the right flange focal distance. Believe me, if it had the good distance, it would protrudes MUCH more into the camera. Those adapters can't protrude too much because of the moving mirror of Nikon cameras. Anyway I'm curious, what kind of lenses are you trying to use ? It is said that the 1.8/6-66 and 1.8/10 Shneiders for M-Mount are the best lenses ever in super 8, so I seriously doubt you will have any advantages mounting other lenses, unless you want extreme telephoto with focal lengths greater than 66mm, but in this case any M to whatever SLR mount with corresponding lenses will do the job.

Hi Jörg, You actually missed something important... With these adapters, your C-Mount lenses will only work in macro or very close focus range. In order to be able to focus to infinity, a C-mount lens need to be mount at the exact distance of 17.52mm from film. The Nikon adapter places it at a distance of about 46mm, well too far from film to operate in normal focus range. It will then act as an extension tube like for macro-photography. I hope it's clear enough. Tom

Each medium has something different to offer. What is great with film is that, if you don't use any Digital Intermediate and if the photography is well done, you don't need to grade it, the picture is beautiful as it is. In digital capture, the video files coming straight out of your camera are not really pleasant to the eye, so you must work some time in post production to grade it. You can put it this way : if you have more time than money, then you can go digital. If you have money and want to go fast, film is a great way to go. I think trying to have a "film look" in digital is pointless, since the big advantage of digital grading is that you can take some time to explore and experiment whole new looks. Keep in mind that digital is only bits of information you need to tweak to obtain what you desire. And those bits are themselves the result of another tweak from multiple analog electric signals. Film is just an chemical analog response to light you can exploit as it is.

I just find the Dragon ridiculous. I mean, what's the point of shooting in 6K ? So can buy an expensive computer to compress it to HD ? I don't think there's even a cine lens capable of resolving this. I'm tired of this "bigger and better" consumerist point of view, always pushing you to buy the latest crap which will be obsolete next year. I just saw last week in a very good theatre a short I shot in 1080p. Yes, this old HD format everybody already forgot. Guess what, people liked it. I admit, it's not as sharp as a F65, but who really cares ? I think the craft is much more important than the specs, the way you light your scene, frame it, grade it. That's what people really see. A well graded HD footage is really enough for most of big screens. Unless you want to be seen on Imax, but I'm not even sure that your work is to be shown on theatre. If you ask me, I prefer to put as less money as possible on the camera, you can find today some HD raw capable cameras for less than 3000$, that's all you need, and keep your money for good glass, that's what matters most in my opinion.

But my lenses are for 35mm. I can't help but think they wont be used to their full potential in Super 16. The BMPCC is wonderful for 16mm lenses, but in my case an APS-C sized sensor is preferable. Haha, saw that too !

I know, the idea is to remove it completely with everything which can block lenses. But even in this case I'm not a hundred percent sure my lenses will fit, as I also need an Arrilflex Standard to PL adapter (the one for rotating mounts, like this) which seems to be pretty large and well protruding inside the mount... I don't know if someone ever tried to use old Arriflex lenses on PL modified Canons...

There seems to be some polish made PL adaptors you can screw on your Canon mount (like this one), but I'm not sure wether it really replaces the EOS mount or just go on top of it (as the seller's photo would suggest). In the last case maybe one would have to grind the EOS mount so it does not block PL lenses. Has anyone tried those adaptors ? I too have some old Arriflex lenses I would like to try on my 50D (that I would "gut out" for the occasion), i'm thinking right now of the best option.